Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: Re: DRAFT! - Twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163  (Read 8407 times)

Sosua

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 102
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: DRAFT! - Twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163
« on: May 25, 2004, 01:37:42 PM »
I'd support a draft if and only if there were an option for alternative service.  That means you have the option to go wipe old people's butts, teach underprivliged kids, or do something else similar for the exact same (essentially no) pay that a draftee would get.

Oh, and it'd have to be both sexes.  Citizenship goes both ways.

marista

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 657
    • AOL Instant Messenger - purplenna
    • View Profile
    • My lawschoolnumbers page
    • Email
Re: DRAFT! - Twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163
« Reply #1 on: May 25, 2004, 01:53:49 PM »
The original article mentions both alternative ("civilian") service and also says women would be drafted in addition to men.

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: DRAFT! - Twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163
« Reply #2 on: May 25, 2004, 02:04:45 PM »
the word alternative might make you think it will be your choice whether to serve in the military.  I suspect it will not be.  You will probably have to demonstrate a history of dedicated pacificism, supported by an organized religion, to be allowed to serve in a 'civilian' capacity.

M2

  • Guest
Re: DRAFT! - Twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163
« Reply #3 on: May 25, 2004, 05:53:28 PM »
I would join Seminary... Priests are excluded...

Ginatio

  • Guest
Re: DRAFT! - Twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163
« Reply #4 on: May 25, 2004, 06:15:50 PM »
I'd go chill in Cancun for four years until Bush's term is up, of which there are certain advantages not afforded by the Seminary...

I would join Seminary... Priests are excluded...

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: DRAFT! - Twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163
« Reply #5 on: May 25, 2004, 07:10:40 PM »
I would join Seminary... Priests are excluded...

Are you sure?  If college deferments go away, why would seminarians be deferred?  They could serve as chaplains or in a 'civilian' capacity.

schoomp

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 603
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - schoomp
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: DRAFT! - Twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163
« Reply #6 on: May 25, 2004, 07:19:13 PM »
"You will probably have to demonstrate a history of dedicated pacificism, supported by an organized religion, to be allowed to serve in a 'civilian' capacity."

If you had to be supported by an organized religion, I am sure that would be brought to court and challanged on seperation of church and state rules.  For example, during the draft for Vietnam, if you were Quaker, you still went, you just served as a medic/translator/etc and not on the front lines where you would kill anyone.

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: DRAFT! - Twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163
« Reply #7 on: May 25, 2004, 07:22:53 PM »
I'm not sure of this info, but I was told that you have to show a history of dedicated pacificism.  In regard to orgnaized religion, I should have said that if you are a member of an organized religion, your religion must have a stated policy of supporting pacificism.

"You will probably have to demonstrate a history of dedicated pacificism, supported by an organized religion, to be allowed to serve in a 'civilian' capacity."

If you had to be supported by an organized religion, I am sure that would be brought to court and challanged on seperation of church and state rules.  For example, during the draft for Vietnam, if you were Quaker, you still went, you just served as a medic/translator/etc and not on the front lines where you would kill anyone.

schoomp

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 603
    • Yahoo Instant Messenger - schoomp
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: DRAFT! - Twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163
« Reply #8 on: May 25, 2004, 07:25:44 PM »
"You will probably have to demonstrate a history of dedicated pacificism, supported by an organized religion, to be allowed to serve in a 'civilian' capacity."

I wonder if organized religion alone would do it - for instance, one of my friends is a Quaker, but disagrees with the pacifist teachings.

On another note - I wonder what medical reasons would qualify for getting out of this. 

jgruber

  • Guest
Re: DRAFT! - Twin bills, S. 89 and HR 163
« Reply #9 on: May 25, 2004, 07:31:26 PM »
If your friend disagrees with the pacificism of Quakers, he/she could be subject to the draft.  I don't think it is clearcut and is subject to a fair amount of interpretation by draft boards, but I'm guessing.

Medical conditions?  who knows?  flat feet used to be enough.

"You will probably have to demonstrate a history of dedicated pacificism, supported by an organized religion, to be allowed to serve in a 'civilian' capacity."

I wonder if organized religion alone would do it - for instance, one of my friends is a Quaker, but disagrees with the pacifist teachings.

On another note - I wonder what medical reasons would qualify for getting out of this.